4K Blu-ray is 96 times the resolution of VHS

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Assuming:
VHS (NTSC) being roughly 360x240 digital resolution when captured. That equals 86,400 pixels.
DVD at 720x480 (NTSC) being 4x VHS resolution at 345,600 pixels.
Blu-ray at 1920x1080 being 24x VHS resolution at 2,073,600 pixels. 6x DVD
UHD (4K) Blu-ray at 3840x2160 being 96x VHS resolution at 8,294,400 pixels. 4x Blu-ray / 24x DVD

But, do you count resolution that way? As in, do you count all the pixels or do you only count how much it multiplies in one direction?
For example, NTSC DVD would be 2x VHS resolution instead of 4x, because it's twice as high and twice as wide. So rather than saying it's four times the resolution (4x the pixels) would you say it's twice the resolution instead?

What's the proper way to say it / measure it?
 
I do try to count them sometimes. The first 86,400 are pretty easy - but then it gets tricky and I lose count around 4-5 million pixels.
 
NorBro said:
I do try to count them sometimes. The first 86,400 are pretty easy - but then it gets tricky and I lose count around 4-5 million pixels.
Click to expand...

This is why VHS won against Betamax, those extra ten lines of resolution Betamax had were just tapping people out when they were counting.
 
BTW, there also were the Super VHS and Hi8 formats. Hi8 won the battle because Canon and Sony made better camcorders than JVC and Mitsubishi and neither the studios not the video stores really went for the idea of prerecorded Hollywood films on S-VHS. So, S-VHS went by the way of the Elcasette.
 
DLD said:
BTW, there also were the Super VHS and Hi8 formats. Hi8 won the battle because Canon and Sony made better camcorders than JVC and Mitsubishi and neither the studios not the video stores really went for the idea of prerecorded Hollywood films on S-VHS. So, S-VHS went by the way of the Elcasette.
Click to expand...

Yup, I remember that. I was shooting with Video 8 back then. Which makes me curious, was it Video 8 or Hi8 that was more popular? Seems like everyone forgets about Video 8 and just calls it all Hi8. At once point I had a Canon Video 8 camera that recorded stereo sound which was a bit unusual as that was typically reserved for Hi8.

So as for my original question, does anyone know how resolution is stated?
 
I'm not sure anyone knows what you're talking about...maybe elaborate?

In general, resolution is measured by marketing terms.

They called 1920x1080 pixels 1080p, but decided 4K was a better description for 3840x2160 pixels even though 2160p is used by some as well.

Moving forward, it's likely going to be about the Ks. 8K, 12K, 16K...
 
P.S. They do describe effective camera sensor resolutions how you're writing above, but IDK about video resolutions, in terms of communicating with anyone.

So a Canon R5 has an ~45MP sensor (45,000,000 pixels from its 8192x5464 sensor).
 
roxics said:
So as for my original question, does anyone know how resolution is stated?
Click to expand...

Generally, a marketing term adopted by the consortium of the manufacturers and the media.

Now, if you want to delve deeper - when I got into the retail electronics in the mid-late 1980's, the TV makers decided on marketing of some of their own specs too. The norm was to internally upscale the traditional 480i image into either 560i (close to SECAM), 720i or, later on, even to 920i. in 1989, Mitsubishi came out with a line of real projection TV's with the 760i upscale. Depending on how close one sat to a set, one could actually see the difference between 560/600 and 760.

Then, as I had mentioned in a different thread, Sony came up with a progressive upscale (480p) for their $5,000 27" Improved Definition CRT but the chip wasn't powerful enough and the image ghosted pretty badly. It was marketed as IDTV.
 
NorBro said:
I'm not sure anyone knows what you're talking about...maybe elaborate?
Click to expand...

Is DVD twice the resolution of VHS or four times the resolution of VHS?

It has four times as many pixels but is only twice the vertical or horizontal measurement 360 to 720 and 240 to 480.

I've heard it said both ways, that's it's only twice the resolution and four times the pixels. But I've also heard it stated that it's four times the resolution because it's four times the pixels.

So is it twice or four times the resolution? What's the actual method for measuring resolution?
 
I think it's one of those pixel density, PPI screen resolution confusing questions that I don't know if I really understood well myself, TBH.

For me, it's about pixel resolution. This is my quintessential standard and I think the total quantity of pixels would define the measurement and therefore DVD would be 4x the resolution of VHS, even though it's only twice the amount of pixels for the height and width (4x combined).
 
Yes, 2x2=4 ... so, it is pixels per frame.

Side note - in the last few weeks, the DP Review (ex-TCS) guys did a clip on resolution vs. pixel size and, maybe because of that, YouTube 'suggested" a clip that seemed like more of the same but was pretty much a promo for GFX 100S. Both videos spoke in favor of for the high resolution sensors vs. the "better low light/lower res" models such as A7SIII.
 
It's kind of semantics really, but I would define a doubling in lines in any given axis as an overall doubling, not quadrupling. I'm looking at the object as a whole. Consider a 4x4 square and an 8x8 square next to each other. If asked how much bigger the 8x8 is than the 4x4, I think most would say it's twice as big, not four times as big.
 
But in reality, we know an 8x8 square is four times as big as a 4x4 square. It would take four 4x4’s to make an 8x8, just like it would take four 1x1’s to make a single 2x2.

But I agree that that is the way a lot of people think. Just like if you ask some people what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks and you inevitably have a lot of those people answer with “a
pound of rocks”, because they are thinking on a more “individual” level, looking at a single average rock vs. a single average feather.

But(again), I also agree that it’s a little tricky and arguing semantics somewhat, in regards to resolution, since we used to just basically define it by the vertical resolution.
 
Last edited:
CharlesPapert said:
It's kind of semantics really, but I would define a doubling in lines in any given axis as an overall doubling, not quadrupling. I'm looking at the object as a whole. Consider a 4x4 square and an 8x8 square next to each other. If asked how much bigger the 8x8 is than the 4x4, I think most would say it's twice as big, not four times as big.
Click to expand...

In that case (and if my math is right) we would say UHD Blu-ray is nine times the resolution of VHS. 2160/240=9. Although it’s a bit tricky since we switch from 4:3 to 16:9 so if we instead calculate 3840/360=10.66 repeating. We could just meet in the middle and say ten. UHD Blu-ray is ten times the resolution of VHS. That does sound more reasonable and realistic compared to ninety-six. Although ninety-six times as many pixels is as accurate.
 
Let's not forget a human eye/brain function. The leap from SD to HD was huge. The hop from HD to 4K was impressive. The slide from 4K to 8K is a mega yawn.

At least, so far. Diminishing returns, you know.

PS. And real estate is listed in square feet.
 
DLD said:
Let's not forget a human eye/brain function. The leap from SD to HD was huge. The hop from HD to 4K was impressive. The slide from 4K to 8K is a mega yawn.

At least, so far. Diminishing returns, you know.

PS. And real estate is listed in square feet.
Click to expand...

I find HD and 4K mostly interchangeable from a viewer perspective. I often can't even tell the difference unless I look closely. I have Blu-rays and UHD Blu-rays and while the latter is better quality mostly as a result of the HDR, I still think regular Blu-rays look gorgeous and sometimes prefer the SDR pictures.

But I agree about the jump from SD to HD, and 8K is a non-event for me.

It is fascinating to me just how many years so many of us watched VHS and never really had much issue with its quality. At least I didn't for so long. It was only until I got something better (DVD) that I eventually realized what I had before wasn't very good. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
 
Before DVD's, there was a 12" laser disc. Off a "normal viewing distance", its 425 lines of resolution was a huge improvement over VHS. But the bugger was pricey, back then around $1,000. Discs themselves weren't cheap either but they were great for the big screen demos.

And sometimes you just lucked into things. Let's say, Jeffrey Jones walks into your store and you just happen to have a copy of "Howard the Duck". His reaction - priceless.
 
DLD said:
Before DVD's, there was a 12" laser disc. Off a "normal viewing distance", its 425 lines of resolution was a huge improvement over VHS. But the bugger was pricey, back then around $1,000. Discs themselves weren't cheap either but they were great for the big screen demos.

And sometimes you just lucked into things. Let's say, Jeffrey Jones walks into your store and you just happen to have a copy of "Howard the Duck". His reaction - priceless.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I was a kid between ten to thirteen years old in the late 80s and early 90s when laserdisc hit its stride. I remember wanting a laserdisc player back in the day, mostly because I just thought they were cool, with the chapter marks, the bonus features, and the widescreen releases. But the prices of the discs were just too much for me. So I didn't look into them much further. And I didn't fully grasp the difference in video quality at the time.

It wasn't until DVD that I recognized a jump in quality. Mostly because I was able to bring it home and really examine it.
The same was true for Blu-ray, which is why I don't think I bought into it until 2012, despite shooting HD footage professionally for half a decade at that point.
I had still mostly been fine with DVD. Once I bought my first HDTV and Blu-ray player and brought it home, I suddenly recognized the quality bump and it's been hard to put on a DVD since.

The one thing I don't get about laserdisc is why the prices were so high. Wasn't part of the purpose of that format the ability to cheaply press discs like records, compared to expensive tapes?
I assume it retained its premium price because it didn't reach enough market saturation to be subject to economies of scale that drove down tape prices. Maybe also because it repositioned itself as a premium A/V experience for collectors and widescreen enthusiasts?
 
Yes. The players were expensive vs. the VHS and, at that time, "playback only" (I went to the 1990 CES in Vegas and saw first CD players-recorders ... for $10,000). Also, the 12" discs themselves were more expensive to manufacture than tape and very few places rented them, which kept the volume down. VHS, by then, was everywhere and included a zillion titles, including XXX.

Also, if you played a typical VHS tape on your 25" TV, you weren't losing much. The LD owners, by then, typically had RPTV's 40" and larger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top